I am a longtime brand guy - mostly from the client side. I write mostly about smart or foolish things that brands do. I teach branding and social media at NYU and for ThirdWay Brand Trainers. Worked in marketing for Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, DoubleClick and others ...

Broder detailed a disappointing drive in cold weather where the real world driving range of the Tesla Model S failed to meet the published estimates. He eventually ended up having the car towed on a flat-bed to the final charging station. Broder chalked it up to new technology and cold weather and he noted:

Tesla’s chief technology officer, J B Straubel, acknowledged that the two East Coast charging stations were at the mileage limit of the Model S’s real-world range. Making matters worse, cold weather inflicts about a 10 percent range penalty, he said, and running the heater draws yet more energy. He added that some range-related software problems still needed to be sorted out.

This was an unfortunate review. The New York Times is an enormous, very influential media outlet with a millions of readers, many of whom are target buyers for Tesla’s 65,000 and up model S.

As a car enthusiast, my reaction to reading Broder’s review was “I would never make that trip with an electric car.” In many ways it was the ultimate torture test for an electric vehicle. Most of us drive our cars under 60 miles a day in traffic conditions that make electric cars ideal. So the New York Times review wouldn’t have put me off buying a Tesla.

Then Elon Musk intervened. Musk is certainly brilliant – besides Tesla he’s responsible for both Paypal and Space-X. The Model S is an astounding car in many ways. Musk may change the face of transportation with Tesla and the Model S is the most important product they’ve produced. But Elon Musk is not a public relations guy. He’s an entrepreneur. The Model S is not a product to Elon Musk – it’s a child. Musk reacted to Broder’s story the same way that a proud father would if he heard someone call his daughter ugly at the school play. He effectively asked Broder to step outside. First he tweeted, then he blogged. There was evidently no adult supervision to keep Musk from responding directly to The New York Times. By doing so, Musk unwittingly created three new problems:

Privacy – Musk’s blog post extensively quotes data from the electronic logs of the Tesla Model S which showed behavior seemingly at odds with the review Broder posted. Reading the blog post, my biggest takeaway was”the frickin’ car company knows when I’m running the heater?” That’s a bigger story than the bad review and Tesla is now stuck with it. They can protest all that they want that they’ll never actually use that data or even look at it. [And to be clear, Tesla asserts that it enables such monitoring only on journalists' cars or with consumer permission. But companies who have the ability to collect data very often eventually use that ability.] Then they can sit in detention with Facebook and Google.

Amplifying the bad review – However bad Broder’s review of the Tesla, it was just one review. Even Broder admitted that the conditions for the drive were less than ideal. And very few people are likely to buy a Tesla Model S for long-distance trips. By picking a fight, Musk drew a 2,100 word response from Broder in the New York Times – essentially another bad review. Plus hundreds of other media articles.

Tesla looks unfriendly – By reacting aggressively, Musk put an unfriendly face on the Tesla brand. When I read Broder’s article, I felt bad for Tesla. It felt as if Broder was putting a bunch of circus clowns in a Mini and then complaining that the car was noisy and crowded. But after reading Musk’s response, I felt bad for Broder and for the New York Times. For a company that has most often gotten great publicity, this was a horrible misstep.

HOW TESLA SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED:

This is not to say that Tesla should have let the New York Times review go unanswered. Every driver knows that a car – any car – will eventually fail in some small or large way and require service. Consumers want to see a car company willing to admit mistakes and eager to fix them. If Tesla had followed four simple principles, the media reaction would have been fundamentally different:

Mirroring – Tesla should have publicly apologized for Broder’s troubles and acknowledged the specific challenges he faced.

Promising - Tesla then could have detailed a specific plans and a timeline for improving the long-distance driving experience. In fact, this is already underway and the charging stations that Broder was trying to reach were just the beginning of a comprehensive network. This gave Tesla the opportunity to trumpet the infrastructure that’s being built so support electric vehicles.

Reframing – Tesla should have then reframed the criticism. Tesla could show that it’s ideally suited for how most people drive their cars today.

Affirming – Finally, Tesla could have recommitted to improving the experience and making every customer happy.

Following these four steps would have defused the negative review, maintained good press relations and shown Tesla to be a friendly, responsive brand.

Of course, if Tesla really believes that outright fraud was committed during the review process, they need not have stopped there. Presenting evidence to a neutral party like The Consumerist (Consumer Reports) or 60 Minutes might have elicited a brilliant counterstrike. By confronting the reviewer publicly and openly though, Tesla has muddied the waters. Many people who support Mr. Musk personally will see a conspiracy, championed by The New York Times against Tesla and electric vehicles. Their voices will certainly be the loudest online. But the more important voices will be those who don’t rant on blogs or tweet – average consumers and prospective buyers who are inclined to trust both Tesla and The New York Times and will just stay away. They would be better served by a neutral review of the claims published in the Times.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The speedo discrepancy is pretty damning, actually. If the tires were a different size, they would have been smaller, not larger, and therefore the readout on the speedometer would have been higher, not lower, than the actual speed. Although there could have been /a/ discrepancy based on the non-standard tires, it’s not possible that Broder could have been thinking he was going slower than he was.

There’s little doubt that the cold would have an effect. However, considering all of the issues here, almost every readout on that car—the speedometer, the climate control, the odometer–would have had to have been wrong for things to have happened the way Broder claims. There IS the possibility that the graphs are fake. But, somehow, I doubt it. I agree that a third party would have been better, but that the rest of your suggestions would have reflected poorly on the company and the product.

Musk’s response was a legitimate one. He knew what had happened wasn’t correct so he proved with hard evidence that the NYT was in fact wrong. Whether he hurt feelings or not is beside the point. You’re not going to keep people from buying an amazing quality product, especially one that can change the automotive industry.

I agree that the Model S may change the automotive industry. I disagree with the PR decision to have the founder reply directly to the New York Times. If this was unfair testing, ignoring it would have been better. If it was fraud, there are other outlets that would be more convincing and cause less damage to the company.

I think you’re way off base from the average consumer here. After reading the report, I was applauding Musk’s response. Most consumers these days understand that the media can be “full of it” and for Musk to make Broder look like a fool was a win on behalf of the consumers.

David, What has not been mentioned yet is the amount of credibility that Elon Musk has built up over the years. You are correct that he is a loose canon and a potential PR nightmare. He is that way precisely because he speaks his mind. The way you develop credibility is to always say the truth and that includes saying things that are not necessarily to your advantage.

The other point that bears mentioning is the amount of publicity this has generated. There is an expression that says all publicity is good publicity. While I wouldn’t go that far, I would say that this has generated a lot of publicity for Tesla that they would not otherwise have had.

David V, You suggest that leadership should remain silent when others knowingly inflict harm through disinformation and factual distortions. I say “bravo” to leaders (and all people) who call out those who disseminate lies and falsehoods. It is precisely these “uncomfortable” moments that test the tenacity and true character of leaders…and will define them.

If no one challenges journalists on their assertions…I surmise you would be much happier. However, if this becomes the “politically correct” way to respond, I assure you, truth and journalistic integrity will be a dead. Seeing your responses to nearly every post (particularly those who don’t agree with you), it is clear that you don’t heed your own advice to “ignore dissenters….and move on”.

Not responding directly and publicly to an accuser and remaining silent are different things. In my case as a blogger, engaging conversation with readers is a good thing. A lively debate is what makes a blog function. On the other hand, a company attacking a media outlet will draw very polarized responses. You see one strain here – those that dislike the media outlet and support the company. Believe it or not, the other strain exits too. There are people who distrust companies implicitly but trust media. Mr. Musk has effectively polarized the conversation. My argument – and my only argument – is that the polarized conversation is not better for the company than defusing the issue. It has been suggested elsewhere that neither Mr. Broder nor Mr. Musk are wrong but that Mr. Broder was an inept consumer while Mr. Musk is an expert in the product. That seems possible too. I don’t inherently distrust either side and I have trouble sifting through the claims as an average non-engineer consumer. So if Mr. Musk felt like the Broder piece contained intentional distortions he would have been smarter to get another media outlet or trusted third party to take his side by sharing his data. News of a coverup at the New York Times would certainly be a juicy story and it would not be polarizing for Tesla.